Divine Love is demonstrated whenever anyone goes beyond immediate family/friends/community to show love, especially when that love is costly. When people go beyond what's expected, when they go the extra mile. Examples already on this thread, go back and read what @mark_in_manchester, @Lamb Chopped, @Bullfrog have posted.
I have no need to to do that. There's nothing unnatural there. Do you mean until Jesus, no one went the extra mile? Or how do Christians do it better than anybody else?
"Love your neighbour" is written in the Torah, and was well known to Jews before Jesus. Similar statements exist in other faiths around the world throughout time. Wherever people have recognised Divine Love that has often been expressed as going beyond the minimum of love for immediate family and community. I don't think Christians necessarily do it better than others.
Humanly speaking, Vance is correct. But aren't those who seek to follow Christ expected to go further? To seek to emulate Divine Love, if I may dare to use that phrase? And I fail to understand the relevance to Vance of RoryStewart's IQ, though that evidently means a lot to Vance.
What does Divine Love look like? Can you give me a real world example? Not a story book example. And even then. In the story book, what is there to follow? In the real world? How can we transcend our time?
"Love your neighbour" is written in the Torah, and was well known to Jews before Jesus. Similar statements exist in other faiths around the world throughout time. Wherever people have recognised Divine Love that has often been expressed as going beyond the minimum of love for immediate family and community. I don't think Christians necessarily do it better than others.
And, "unnatural" is a category error.
So there is nothing unnatural about loving your neighbour, about the golden rule. And what category? Why call normal human behaviour Divine Love?
Humanly speaking, Vance is correct. But aren't those who seek to follow Christ expected to go further? To seek to emulate Divine Love, if I may dare to use that phrase? And I fail to understand the relevance to Vance of RoryStewart's IQ, though that evidently means a lot to Vance.
What does Divine Love look like? Can you give me a real world example? Not a story book example. And even then. In the story book, what is there to follow? In the real world? How can we transcend our time?
Aye. Humans are natural. Completely natural. Physical. In every way. Up to and fully including their qualia and behaviour. Oscar Romero was no exception. To say that he and those that forged him were supernatural in some regard, belittles 'human nature', leaves it in the hands of his killers. Unless we say the Devil made them do it.
Aye. Humans are natural. Completely natural. Physical. In every way. Up to and fully including their qualia and behaviour. Oscar Romero was no exception. To say that he and those that forged him were supernatural in some regard, belittles 'human nature', leaves it in the hands of his killers. Unless we say the Devil made them do it.
Aye. Humans are natural. Completely natural. Physical. In every way. Up to and fully including their qualia and behaviour. Oscar Romero was no exception. To say that he and those that forged him were supernatural in some regard, belittles 'human nature', leaves it in the hands of his killers. Unless we say the Devil made them do it.
Aye. Humans are natural. Completely natural. Physical. In every way. Up to and fully including their qualia and behaviour. Oscar Romero was no exception. To say that he and those that forged him were supernatural in some regard, belittles 'human nature', leaves it in the hands of his killers. Unless we say the Devil made them do it.
From a Christian perspective, you're right that humans are completely natural in everyway. But, we're also supernatural, as the Genesis myth puts it God has breathed His Spirit into us and made us in His image. It's not just the nature of Jesus that holds together two inconsistent truths (fully God and fully human), that's true of humanity as well.
Which is why "natural" is a category error in this discussion.
"Love your neighbour" is written in the Torah, and was well known to Jews before Jesus. Similar statements exist in other faiths around the world throughout time. Wherever people have recognised Divine Love that has often been expressed as going beyond the minimum of love for immediate family and community. I don't think Christians necessarily do it better than others.
And, "unnatural" is a category error.
So there is nothing unnatural about loving your neighbour, about the golden rule. And what category? Why call normal human behaviour Divine Love?
I don't think anyone is saying that Christians have a monopoly on decency and concern for others.
But they did attract attention back in the early days for the way they cared for one another and for those outside their immediate circles.
How do we know that? I accept it, but how do we know it. And what does it prove? God? That's really bad science.
I didn't say it proved anything, simply that there have been times when Christians behaving as they should has attracted wider attention. There have equally been plenty of occasions when Christians have acted as they shouldn't.
Aye. Humans are natural. Completely natural. Physical. In every way. Up to and fully including their qualia and behaviour. Oscar Romero was no exception. To say that he and those that forged him were supernatural in some regard, belittles 'human nature', leaves it in the hands of his killers. Unless we say the Devil made them do it.
But Martin just a few posts ago you were saying that no-one could display these virtues, that everybody would inevitably put themselves and their children before others. Now you are saying that everyone can display these virtues, that it is belittling and anti-human to say otherwise.
Aye. Humans are natural. Completely natural. Physical. In every way. Up to and fully including their qualia and behaviour. Oscar Romero was no exception. To say that he and those that forged him were supernatural in some regard, belittles 'human nature', leaves it in the hands of his killers. Unless we say the Devil made them do it.
From a Christian perspective, you're right that humans are completely natural in everyway. But, we're also supernatural, as the Genesis myth puts it God has breathed His Spirit into us and made us in His image. It's not just the nature of Jesus that holds together two inconsistent truths (fully God and fully human), that's true of humanity as well.
Which is why "natural" is a category error in this discussion.
If you say so. So what about us is supernatural? Since Eden? 6,027 years ago. Scientifically speaking? What couldn't we be doing without it? Would we not be human? You know, natural, even?
"Love your neighbour" is written in the Torah, and was well known to Jews before Jesus. Similar statements exist in other faiths around the world throughout time. Wherever people have recognised Divine Love that has often been expressed as going beyond the minimum of love for immediate family and community. I don't think Christians necessarily do it better than others.
And, "unnatural" is a category error.
So there is nothing unnatural about loving your neighbour, about the golden rule. And what category? Why call normal human behaviour Divine Love?
I don't think anyone is saying that Christians have a monopoly on decency and concern for others.
But they did attract attention back in the early days for the way they cared for one another and for those outside their immediate circles.
How do we know that? I accept it, but how do we know it. And what does it prove? God? That's really bad science.
I didn't say it proved anything, simply that there have been times when Christians behaving as they should has attracted wider attention. There have equally been plenty of occasions when Christians have acted as they shouldn't.
Aye. Most of the time since it became institutionalized. Christians were once upon a time noted for helping on another to the extent that they held all things in common. Hasn't happened for while.
One could argue, of course, that any activity beyond caring for one's one, needs ad those of one's offspring are super-natural. If disinterested, I would call tHem examples of l9ve which I believe to be a divine gift implanted in all human beings, which sometimes unfortunately becomes corruptedor misused'
Tou are, of course, free to dsagree, Martin54, which I maintatn is also a divine gift. Social insects seem to lack that ability.
Apologies, fellow shipmates, for diverting us down this blind alley. Again.
I would show you, but as we’ve discussed before, we need to be on the same continent.
No you would not. You'd show me nature. The fact that you can't point to unnatural love anywhere else but the invisible back streets of St. Louis, evokes Jesus' own words again Matthew 24:26. Just as divine healing only occurs in up country Angola.
I think we are arguing in different terms, Martin54, on which resolution is impossible. Do you, by any chance, possess, or have access to, a Wardrobe? Behind the dusty coats, at the very back, it is always possible you may find hope, one day. But do not, of course, close the door behind you. It is very foolish to shut oneself into a wardrobe.
I think we are arguing in different terms, Martin54, on which resolution is impossible. Do you, by any chance, possess, or have access to, a Wardrobe? Behind the dusty coats, at the very back, it is always possible you may find hope, one day. But do not, of course, close the door behind you. It is very foolish to shut oneself into a wardrobe.
Too late! I'm stuck in one it seems! Ah well, the only way is Narnia!
One could argue, of course, that any activity beyond caring for one's one, needs ad those of one's offspring are super-natural. If disinterested, I would call tHem examples of l9ve which I believe to be a divine gift implanted in all human beings, which sometimes unfortunately becomes corruptedor misused'
Tou are, of course, free to dsagree, Martin54, which I maintatn is also a divine gift. Social insects seem to lack that ability.
Apologies, fellow shipmates, for diverting us down this blind alley. Again.
If you think it's "natural" to "go the extra mile," which btw, Walter Wink argued is a vastly misunderstood expression, look at how even in "blue states," care for the disabled is chronically underfunded, even in times when everyone is rich. I was just talking about that with my boss the other day.
And it's worse in red states with tighter budgets.
The "natural" thing, by capitalist logic, is to invest in things that give you more money. It's natural to eat food because the food gives you more calories than you had to expend to prepare it. Charity is, realistically, throwing your money down a black hole, from the perspective of an individual autonomous unit. And it can be hard to see that sometimes.
And I think we are all like that past a certain point.
Honestly, if I'm a paragon of virtue as far as charity is concerned because I sometimes give money to panhandlers, we are all ethically screwed.
I will also add to the pile of posters saying that Christianity should not claim a monopoly on the practice of unnatural charity. I think most all major religions promote it in their own way and you can find real paragons in every culture. But they are certainly not regarded as "normal" or even "normative."
...which is maybe the place to point out that Jesus' ethics and teaching of that sort are not and cannot be original, if he is who he claims to be, the Origin of everything. Of course his stuff is going to echo or be echoed by everybody else.
...which is maybe the place to point out that Jesus' ethics and teaching of that sort are not and cannot be original, if he is who he claims to be, the Origin of everything. Of course his stuff is going to echo or be echoed by everybody else.
Definitely. A lot of it's common sense and/or "Greatest Hits from the Torah." And that's not a bad thing at all.
There's no virtue in being weird about things that are pointlessly weird, is there?
The "natural" thing, by capitalist logic, is to invest in things that give you more money. It's natural to eat food because the food gives you more calories than you had to expend to prepare it. Charity is, realistically, throwing your money down a black hole, from the perspective of an individual autonomous unit. And it can be hard to see that sometimes.
And I think we are all like that past a certain point.
I think even in terms of people's charitable donations, there's often an eye on "return for investment". Things that show success at getting homeless people back on their feet and in to jobs and apartments, or getting released prisoners engaged with a "constructive" life and away from the likelihood of reoffending seem to be an easier sell than "make someone's life a little bit better today, and then you need to keep doing the same thing tomorrow and the next day".
People are much more willing to fund "cure for X" than "care for people who have X".
…And if there’s nothing else to say about JD Vance and Ordo Amoris we may as well close the thread.
Discussion about what Divine Love might be, and whether it exists deserves its own thread, if people want to discuss it, with a suitably crafted OP to start it off.
The "natural" thing, by capitalist logic, is to invest in things that give you more money. It's natural to eat food because the food gives you more calories than you had to expend to prepare it. Charity is, realistically, throwing your money down a black hole, from the perspective of an individual autonomous unit. And it can be hard to see that sometimes.
And I think we are all like that past a certain point.
I think even in terms of people's charitable donations, there's often an eye on "return for investment". Things that show success at getting homeless people back on their feet and in to jobs and apartments, or getting released prisoners engaged with a "constructive" life and away from the likelihood of reoffending seem to be an easier sell than "make someone's life a little bit better today, and then you need to keep doing the same thing tomorrow and the next day".
People are much more willing to fund "cure for X" than "care for people who have X".
This is true, and yet “care for x” where a cure is not (yet) on the table is absolutely necessary, unless death is an acceptable outcome.
The "natural" thing, by capitalist logic, is to invest in things that give you more money. It's natural to eat food because the food gives you more calories than you had to expend to prepare it. Charity is, realistically, throwing your money down a black hole, from the perspective of an individual autonomous unit. And it can be hard to see that sometimes.
And I think we are all like that past a certain point.
I think even in terms of people's charitable donations, there's often an eye on "return for investment". Things that show success at getting homeless people back on their feet and in to jobs and apartments, or getting released prisoners engaged with a "constructive" life and away from the likelihood of reoffending seem to be an easier sell than "make someone's life a little bit better today, and then you need to keep doing the same thing tomorrow and the next day".
People are much more willing to fund "cure for X" than "care for people who have X".
This is true, and yet “care for x” where a cure is not (yet) on the table is absolutely necessary, unless death is an acceptable outcome.
Agreed. When I studied politics, we were taught very strictly to avoid words like "solve," because in the real world, there's no "solving" poverty. I think it's the healthiest take on "the poor you will always have with you." You can't expect to "solve" the problem with a lump sum donation. It's a continual obligation. And that's the only way to treat it.
And true, for a lot of us, there's some self interest in that, especially these days, we're a lot closer to destitution than financial independence.
The "natural" thing, by capitalist logic, is to invest in things that give you more money. It's natural to eat food because the food gives you more calories than you had to expend to prepare it. Charity is, realistically, throwing your money down a black hole, from the perspective of an individual autonomous unit. And it can be hard to see that sometimes.
And I think we are all like that past a certain point.
I think even in terms of people's charitable donations, there's often an eye on "return for investment". Things that show success at getting homeless people back on their feet and in to jobs and apartments, or getting released prisoners engaged with a "constructive" life and away from the likelihood of reoffending seem to be an easier sell than "make someone's life a little bit better today, and then you need to keep doing the same thing tomorrow and the next day".
People are much more willing to fund "cure for X" than "care for people who have X".
This is true, and yet “care for x” where a cure is not (yet) on the table is absolutely necessary, unless death is an acceptable outcome.
Death is not only an acceptable outcome in some cases, it’s also the best outcome in some cases.
And it’s the inevitable and unavoidable outcome for every single one of us, sooner or later. There’s not really any such thing as saving a life, the best you can ever do is postpone a death.
That may be—and yet, if you look at the context in which I was speaking, death is unacceptable as an option. For example, dealing with beggars on the street. People on the edge of homelessness. People addicted to drugs. Generally speaking, any social program which needs funds to maintain people is not going to be one where death is the best option, or even a decent one.
...which is maybe the place to point out that Jesus' ethics and teaching of that sort are not and cannot be original, if he is who he claims to be, the Origin of everything. Of course his stuff is going to echo or be echoed by everybody else.
How does being the unique, one and only, scandal of the particular make him unoriginal? His ethics have been broadcast BC? We have no excuse? Everybody is hyperbole? Just everyone who's been tuned in for 50, 80, 400,000 years? Or everybody means everybody as we're all God breathed?
It’s a very boring and simple point. If Jesus is, as he claims, God, the source of ethics and morals, then we would expect to find his teachings reflected in every culture, including those before his birth into this world. And we do find this. I’m not putting it out there as a proof of anything, but rather as an explanation for why his teaching sounds so familiar to everybody.
Dignity of Risk is a terrible burden sometimes, but I think you have to carry it if you want to be remembered as wasn't-a-Nazi.
I do think a person has a right to die, but that must be their own choice. Once you start whittling away at that from the outside, you start going into a very dark place.
What if some millionaire decides that the life of a mere six-figure-earner isn't happy enough to be regarded as properly happy? Where's the line?
It’s a very boring and simple point. If Jesus is, as he claims, God, the source of ethics and morals, then we would expect to find his teachings reflected in every culture, including those before his birth into this world. And we do find this. I’m not putting it out there as a proof of anything, but rather as an explanation for why his teaching sounds so familiar to everybody.
So ethics and morals which humanity has in common for the past million years, give or take, isn't natural. Uh huh. Isn't completely explained by evolution. Even yours. God did it. Like They did all nature. Without a trace. As if They didn't. But They did.
The power of belief easily overwhelms rationality. Humanity is a believing : rational monkey 10 : 1, 100 : 1
I'm not attempting to convince you of anything. That's above my pay-grade. Just explaining my remark.
A ghastly sight admittedly.
But surely, you're using rhetoric, attempting to persuade, at least that you have a point. When, rationally, in faith, you don't. You have a mere essentialist belief with no basis in reality at all. That all good morality is divine. What about the bad? After all, everyone is right in their own eyes.
Host hat on
Please attend to my host post above. If posters are not actually ignoring it, they are skating very close to the line. The subject of this thread is “JD Vance and Ordo Amoris” not the question whether all or any morality, or works of love are divine or not. That discussion, if it is to be had, needs its own thread. BroJames, Purgatory Host
The latest episode of The Holy Post (a podcast started by Phil Vischer of Veggie Tales fame) focuses on the Vance/ordo amoris issue for about the first half—the tl/dr summary is that Vance is wrong, but with much more history of where the actual concept behind the phrase comes from, and the disturbing influences from Christian Nationalism in the current situation.
(I’m very happy to report that Phil is definitely anti-MAGA, in case anyone was wondering—I discovered his podcast when I was going down the list of famous Christian musicians and others to see who had and hasn’t gone down the Trumpy path, so I was relieved that Phil had not. It’s a very good podcast…)
Well obviously Vance is heterodox, as Jesus hyperbolically taught the opposite.
Luke 14:26
New Living Translation
“If you want to be my disciple, you must, by comparison, hate everyone else—your father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even your own life. Otherwise, you cannot be my disciple.
Which we deconstruct and dilute to mean that doing what love requires means going to church come what might. And not bowing to family peer pressure to do un-Christian things. Anything else?
Comments
I have no need to to do that. There's nothing unnatural there. Do you mean until Jesus, no one went the extra mile? Or how do Christians do it better than anybody else?
And, "unnatural" is a category error.
Oscar Romero.
But they did attract attention back in the early days for the way they cared for one another and for those outside their immediate circles.
So there is nothing unnatural about loving your neighbour, about the golden rule. And what category? Why call normal human behaviour Divine Love?
How do we know that? I accept it, but how do we know it. And what does it prove? God? That's really bad science.
A superb human. What was unnatural about him?
You are playing a game called No True Scotsman.
How?
Which is why "natural" is a category error in this discussion.
I didn't say it proved anything, simply that there have been times when Christians behaving as they should has attracted wider attention. There have equally been plenty of occasions when Christians have acted as they shouldn't.
But Martin just a few posts ago you were saying that no-one could display these virtues, that everybody would inevitably put themselves and their children before others. Now you are saying that everyone can display these virtues, that it is belittling and anti-human to say otherwise.
If you say so. So what about us is supernatural? Since Eden? 6,027 years ago. Scientifically speaking? What couldn't we be doing without it? Would we not be human? You know, natural, even?
Aye. Most of the time since it became institutionalized. Christians were once upon a time noted for helping on another to the extent that they held all things in common. Hasn't happened for while.
You know otherwise? Show me.
I would show you, but as we’ve discussed before, we need to be on the same continent.
Tou are, of course, free to dsagree, Martin54, which I maintatn is also a divine gift. Social insects seem to lack that ability.
Apologies, fellow shipmates, for diverting us down this blind alley. Again.
No you would not. You'd show me nature. The fact that you can't point to unnatural love anywhere else but the invisible back streets of St. Louis, evokes Jesus' own words again Matthew 24:26. Just as divine healing only occurs in up country Angola.
You're on my bucket list. You'd better believe it.
Too late! I'm stuck in one it seems! Ah well, the only way is Narnia!
It's the selfish gene of eusociality. Kinship.
And it's worse in red states with tighter budgets.
The "natural" thing, by capitalist logic, is to invest in things that give you more money. It's natural to eat food because the food gives you more calories than you had to expend to prepare it. Charity is, realistically, throwing your money down a black hole, from the perspective of an individual autonomous unit. And it can be hard to see that sometimes.
And I think we are all like that past a certain point.
Honestly, if I'm a paragon of virtue as far as charity is concerned because I sometimes give money to panhandlers, we are all ethically screwed.
I will also add to the pile of posters saying that Christianity should not claim a monopoly on the practice of unnatural charity. I think most all major religions promote it in their own way and you can find real paragons in every culture. But they are certainly not regarded as "normal" or even "normative."
This.
What?
Definitely. A lot of it's common sense and/or "Greatest Hits from the Torah." And that's not a bad thing at all.
There's no virtue in being weird about things that are pointlessly weird, is there?
I think even in terms of people's charitable donations, there's often an eye on "return for investment". Things that show success at getting homeless people back on their feet and in to jobs and apartments, or getting released prisoners engaged with a "constructive" life and away from the likelihood of reoffending seem to be an easier sell than "make someone's life a little bit better today, and then you need to keep doing the same thing tomorrow and the next day".
People are much more willing to fund "cure for X" than "care for people who have X".
Discussion about what Divine Love might be, and whether it exists deserves its own thread, if people want to discuss it, with a suitably crafted OP to start it off.
BroJames, Purgatory Host
This is true, and yet “care for x” where a cure is not (yet) on the table is absolutely necessary, unless death is an acceptable outcome.
Agreed. When I studied politics, we were taught very strictly to avoid words like "solve," because in the real world, there's no "solving" poverty. I think it's the healthiest take on "the poor you will always have with you." You can't expect to "solve" the problem with a lump sum donation. It's a continual obligation. And that's the only way to treat it.
And true, for a lot of us, there's some self interest in that, especially these days, we're a lot closer to destitution than financial independence.
Death is not only an acceptable outcome in some cases, it’s also the best outcome in some cases.
And it’s the inevitable and unavoidable outcome for every single one of us, sooner or later. There’s not really any such thing as saving a life, the best you can ever do is postpone a death.
How does being the unique, one and only, scandal of the particular make him unoriginal? His ethics have been broadcast BC? We have no excuse? Everybody is hyperbole? Just everyone who's been tuned in for 50, 80, 400,000 years? Or everybody means everybody as we're all God breathed?
I do think a person has a right to die, but that must be their own choice. Once you start whittling away at that from the outside, you start going into a very dark place.
What if some millionaire decides that the life of a mere six-figure-earner isn't happy enough to be regarded as properly happy? Where's the line?
Best keep it nice and low for all of our sake.
So ethics and morals which humanity has in common for the past million years, give or take, isn't natural. Uh huh. Isn't completely explained by evolution. Even yours. God did it. Like They did all nature. Without a trace. As if They didn't. But They did.
The power of belief easily overwhelms rationality. Humanity is a believing : rational monkey 10 : 1, 100 : 1
Look at JFK Jnr.
I'm not attempting to convince you of anything. That's above my pay-grade. Just explaining my remark.
A ghastly sight admittedly.
But surely, you're using rhetoric, attempting to persuade, at least that you have a point. When, rationally, in faith, you don't. You have a mere essentialist belief with no basis in reality at all. That all good morality is divine. What about the bad? After all, everyone is right in their own eyes.
Please attend to my host post above. If posters are not actually ignoring it, they are skating very close to the line. The subject of this thread is “JD Vance and Ordo Amoris” not the question whether all or any morality, or works of love are divine or not. That discussion, if it is to be had, needs its own thread.
BroJames, Purgatory Host
(I’m very happy to report that Phil is definitely anti-MAGA, in case anyone was wondering—I discovered his podcast when I was going down the list of famous Christian musicians and others to see who had and hasn’t gone down the Trumpy path, so I was relieved that Phil had not. It’s a very good podcast…)
https://youtu.be/902BhBX6I8E?si=O0aVNg9mbFSFNLeJ
Luke 14:26
New Living Translation
“If you want to be my disciple, you must, by comparison, hate everyone else—your father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even your own life. Otherwise, you cannot be my disciple.
Which we deconstruct and dilute to mean that doing what love requires means going to church come what might. And not bowing to family peer pressure to do un-Christian things. Anything else?
None of us, I hope, takes it literally.
No he didn't, but we do. Is there anything else we actually do that actually makes us his distinctive disciples?